[jMyles]

You are moving the goal posts now.

Fabrication of complaints and testimony is, of course, possible, but it's not the same thing, nor is it in the same category of ease for a corrupt state official, as merely planting evidence.

The main benefit of prohibition, from the standpoint of the state, is that planting evidence against anybody is suddenly possible, and in fact in many communities the evidence is already planted.

In this particular case, we happen to have evidence of the former, but it is not evidence that fabrication of complaints and testimony, which require a far more elaborate corruption superstructure, are possible in this community.

[simoncion]

> You are moving the goal posts now.

I absolutely am not.

Officials shut down a police IA investigation into the years-long scheme. The folks who were complicit in this scheme SHUT DOWN an active investigation into the scheme.

Why on earth do you think that fabrication of (or paid production of) testimony wouldn't be possible?

An internal investigation was shut down by those involved in the conspiracy!

[jMyles]

I think we're talking past each other.

I'm not saying that fabrication of testimony isn't possible - I fully acknowledge that perjurious conduct occurred in this very case!

What I'm saying is that fabrication of testimony and planting of evidence aren't the same thing.

You aren't going to be oppress an entire class ( / race) of people by producing "victim" after "victim" whose basis is perjurious. Some, sure. Especially when the stakes are high and the state needs a solid lie.

But in order to have this assembly line of false convictions, you absolutely need a victimless crime.

[simoncion]

> What I'm saying is that fabrication of testimony and planting of evidence aren't the same thing.

Correct. Planting of evidence is more difficult and more unlikely than fabrication of testimony.

Fabrication of testimony is lying about the facts of a matter.

Planting of evidence is lying about the facts of a matter in addition to leaving physical traces that corroborate your lies.

> But in order to have this assembly line of false convictions, you absolutely need a victimless crime.

Negatory.

This crime has been ongoing since at least 1996.

The article mentions "hundreds" of cases. Let's say that that's 500 cases, which works out to ~2.1 cases per month. I wouldn't call that an "assembly line" of cases.

Dothan has -roughly- 60k people in it. Over ~twenty years, this conspiracy touched less than 1% of the area's population... and -to be frank- it's a segment of the population that is not well-liked by a lot of the folks in the area. Few locals would bat an eye if "Them $RACIAL_SLURs done hit Jim-Joe's Gun Shop again.". [0]

The article states that the police department called the DA's office in order to get the DA's office to actively block the IA investigation. I see no reason why the office wouldn't also fail to question periodic rashes of burglary against a few suspiciously unlucky business owners.

As has been demonstrated, all you need to run this scheme is a few corruptable (or corrupted) people in key positions and a pool of people who are too poor to raise a competent defense.

Alabama has both... in quantity.

[0] Citation: I grew up in the sticks in Alabama. There are lots of good people, but there are lots of terrible people, too. And, yes, there are many folks with names (or nyms) like Billy-Bob and Jim-Joe. :)

[jMyles]

I agree in full with everything you have said.

Where I'm a little lost is how you project this into a future where drug prohibition (and other consensual "crime") doesn't exist.

So, sure, you have a few gnarly guys who will perjur themselves for you - but what do you accuse people of? What is the crime that replaces drug possession?

Without victims, you can't really make this work...?

[simoncion]

> What is the crime that replaces drug possession?

Theft.

(As I've explicitly mentioned at least once. :) )

Other possibilities: False statements to authorities. Possession of a (loaded or unloaded) pistol in the cab of your vehicle, without possession of a pistol permit. Trespass. Assault. Traffic violations. (And then arrest for failure to appear for the same, or jail for failure to be able to pay the fines for the same.) Parole violations. (Here's where evidence planting gets you back to the quick path to jail time.)

You've gotta understand. The criminals who were running this scheme were dedicated. There are a wide variety of crimes that could be used for a relatively quick frame-up.

When you know that the DA isn't gonna closely examine your case, you know that IA isn't going to expose your scheme, and you're fairly certain that the folks you're targeting can't mount an effective defense, you get to do all sorts of things that reasonable people would expect to be impossible.

[jMyles]

What will this person have stolen? To whom will it belong? Someone will have to claim to be the victim.

I guess still, we're talking past each other.

We need to repeal laws against every one of those offenses except assault and theft (which will require a victim to come forward, again returning to my initial question).

My assertion (and one that I think it quite clearly backed up by the evidence in history on the matter) is that these victimless crimes are created precisely to target (typically racial) groups.

I don't view the unethical law and the racist enforcement as two different things, but as parts of the same motion.